Analysis Calls Roberts Court Most Conservative in ‘Living Memory’

A front-page analysis of the Supreme Court's ideological direction in Sunday's New York Times calls the court under Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. "the most conservative one in living memory."

Citing the replacement of Justice Sandra Day O'Connor with Justice Samuel Alito as one of the primary causes for the change, the article predicts:

If the Roberts court continues on the course suggested by its first five years, it is likely to allow a greater role for religion in public life, to permit more participation by unions and corporations in elections and to elaborate further on the scope of the Second Amendment's right to bear arms. Abortion rights are likely to be curtailed, as are affirmative action and protections for people accused of crimes.

Decisions favoring criminal defendants, unions, people claiming discrimination or violation of their civil rights are considered liberal, the article explains. Decisions striking down economic regulations and favoring prosecutors, employers and the government are said to be conservative.

According to data collected by political scientists, "four of the six most conservative justices of the 44 who have sat on the court since 1937 are serving now: Chief Justice Roberts and Justices Alito, Antonin Scalia and, most conservative of all, Clarence Thomas."

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens also noted in an interview in April that "every one of the 11 justices who had joined the court since 1975, including himself, was more conservative than his or her predecessor, with the possible exceptions of Justices Sotomayor and Ruth Bader Ginsburg."

During the 2010 ACS National Convention, Sen. Al Franken discussed the impact that the conservative wing of the court has had on the case law.

"I don't think you need to be a lawyer to recognize that the Roberts Court has, consistently and intentionally, protected and promoted the interests of the powerful over those of individual Americans," Franken said. "And you certainly don't need to be a lawyer to understand what that means for the working people who are losing their rights, one 5-4 decision at a time."

For more analysis of the high court's recent term, see video of the ACS Supreme Court term review.